GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.

You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!

Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.

Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.

Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide

This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.

"Gods," life after death from dust and atoms and stuff we don't get yet (even zombies) and et cetera are fiction and yes it may take vast amounts of time or even never get gotPERIOD

But it is still possible! Specially for you i found this quote that even scientists icons doesn't hide they believe in science not know.

Quote:

"I really believe in science. It is a faith. It is a reverence akin to religion. But as we always say, it's different from religion in that, as near as we can tell, it exists outside of us. It has an objective quality, the process of science."
Bill Nye

I do like the quote but faith to him and science itself will never be blind like religious beliefs.

faith
fāTH/
noun
noun: faith

1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
optimism, hopefulness, hope
"he justified his boss's faith in him"
antonyms: mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine More
"she gave her life for her faith"
a system of religious belief.
plural noun: faiths
"the Christian faith"
a strongly held belief or theory.
"the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe"

{...} [B]Somethings can never be proved or disproved but environment preys!{...}

Not if you understand that there are more than one or few ways to prove or disprove something. Kinda like spoon bending in Matrix - each potential would bend it differently but they all would get job done regardless of path of choice.

one thing I find amusing is how a religious person seems to fight and defend there belief that in itself is a sin and egotistical , then you have some of those irractical muslims tht in some eyes are called terorist but in there own eyes are doing what god wants them to do, themn you ave the people of george town in which the majority of them drank the coolaid knowing that they would die but thought that in there death they would go to heaven and be closer to god. in one way every one of those things are all correct because every one of those people believed they were correct.
who are we to say what is actually right or wrong .

To me I can only go by what I do know from my own life experiences, now am I correct well to me I am but to someone in a war torn country I am way way off.
it in't as simple as who is right or wrong it is more of what works for you with out hurting killing other life .

I do have to admit that wih out religion ( even though I do not at all believe in the ible or God\Gods Devels demons ) it does have a purpoe for some type of order
other wise most likely allot of the human race wouldn't exit today we would have killed off each other long ago.
this all comes back to religious beliefs again because most of the world killing has to do with some type of religious belief .

The Christian religion in particular is "remarkably Romanized," which should come as no surprise as it is a product of the Roman Empire. The entire thing is tremendously centered on three cores:

That "God wants you to be subservient to the State." Render to Caesar, etc.

"The eternal carrot vs. the eternal stick." That God is so incredibly pissed-off at you that he plans to destroy you for all eternity ... no matter what you do, unless you embrace the State Religion like a life-preserver.

That there is a strict hierarchy, with the State on the top and Women on the bottom of the heap.

This is in sharp contrast with scattered comments that we see "Jesus of Nazareth" saying – and sometimes contradicting himself. But this is really not too surprising if you consider that our view of "the historical Jesus" as presented through this set of State-sanctioned documents is anything but unbiased and anything but original-writing.

It was also very much a religion for the illiterate plebeians. A very knowledgeable person was reading strange things to you from a Book. You couldn't read anything. This man was telling you very frightening tales; it's only natural that you would believe them. You'd leave the sanctuary, giddy from the incense, and stare up at the stars ... now, in fear of eternal judgment, as though you were damned for being who and what you are. No better method for State control of great masses of people has ever been invented, and none is more effective.

But, once you realize that this sort of mass-psychology was going on ... it's like discovering the secret of a magic trick. Now, every time the charlatan repeats himself, you see what he is actually doing. You start to distinguish between what you think God is, and what other people tell you God is ... and you begin to lose your fear (which was ground into you since childhood) of thinking about such things on your own.

I often wonder what the world would be like if everyone could imagine themselves as everyone else: how were they raised, what changed\es them, did they eat well as a kid, did they have to go to school or want, on and on,,, sadly it's back to "unimaginable tracks of time..."

Distribution: Slackware 14 is Main OpSys on Main PC, 2ndary are OpenSuSe 13 and SolydK

Posts: 841

Rep:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcane

So you are not part of humanity? Sorry alien who lives on other planet probably on different plane of existance. On Earth we have different rules and traditions - one of which is that with time a lot of previously impossible-in-theory answers actually are revealed by various methods and tools in praxis and become not so much sci-fi. That is how our knowledge of world increase.

OK I think I can stomach one more shot. Of course I am a part of humanity but I rarely presume to be qualified to speak for large groups unless I have evidence of a pattern, some common denominator. This rules out my speaking for Humanity. I won't try to speak even for the subset of those who embrace mixing Logic and Faith. Apparently you are not bound by similar constraints. To me that smacks of the "Royal 'We'" and makes me suspicious that arrogance rules such a person. Maybe this is not so, but it seems at least possible, if not, likely.

Just because a previous level of understanding did not allow for some things to appear to be true and verifiable, is not license for all things to be possible, true, and verifiable. Some things simply are likely not possible under any circumstances, ever.

Certainly many things have extremely low odds of likelihood. Example - Quantum Theory says that it is within some realm of possibility that your body is here on Earth and at the very same moment also on Jupiter. It's just that the odds are unimaginably low... low enough that it is rather safe to bet it will never occur even in the lifetime of the entire Universe. Next!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcane

Actually if any point was prooven in effect is that people need learn to read more(prefferably few books). If not then watch videos that do job just as much if not more. Like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

I watched that video (and read lots of books) and the video is quite good - succinct and accurate. In fact, I think you should watch it again...perhaps many times until it sinks in that there is a difference between confidence and faith, in Scientific terms.

Similarly, I hear many Faith inclined refer to Evolution scathingly, dismissively, saying "Oh that's just a theory" which only serves to display their ignorance of what a Theory is in Science. It is not the same as imagination or opinion. Theory, in the Scientific sense, requires peer review, the test of time and falsifiability... in short, reasonable proof.

In the case of Evolution if ever it had to pass a test, the discovery of DNA was a Deusy. Instead of falsifying Evolution in a manner beyond the wildest dreams of those of Darwin's time, it only fortified it... and yet...Evolution is still "just a Theory". That's how exacting and high standards oriented Science is.

Falsifiability is a concept alien to Faith-based because most Faith depends on some "Higher Authority" that apparently must provide some sense of certainty. Falsifiabilty is not a weakness. It is a strength, and one that recognizes progress as well as the limitations of Logic and Science. Science does not pretend to be all-seeing, all-knowing or omnipotent. It is always a work in progress that builds on the past, in varying degrees of confidence.

Incidentally, truly scientific study is rarely ever dismissed wholesale. Newtons Laws are still accurate within the context in which they were worked out and tested. Beyond that, we must turn to Einstein, but he did not refute Newtons Laws. He expanded on them. This is how a body of knowledge grows, not by mere supposition. Einstein started with supposition but did not stop there. He put in the work to determine if it fit all observable phenomenon. Faith stops at supposition being only concerned with if it fits some ancient text, not modern observable events.

On a fundamental level it is impossible to disprove or falsify the existence of a Deity. Therefore, the supposition can never be even a Theory. There is no work to put in. There is no evidence to work with. Ideally, the Faith Inclined can learn to accept that and stop trying to be what it never can be - Logical and Scientific, and just accept that they choose to be superstitious.

The very fact that any group of people in modern society, let alone millions, still assert that the earth is 10,000 years old or less is absolutely insane, unfathomable, indefensible, and frankly, inexcusable. However it does portray the fallacy of flirting with Faith. Danger! Will Robinson. Danger.

@enorbet, I think that it's safe to say that for many people "science has become their 'religion,'" and they approach it in exactly the selfsame way as they did the old one: "[Science] says it, I believe it, and that settles it.™"

They want to have "the meaning of (and, the origin of ...) 'life, the universe, and everything,'" and, by God[-less], "they want to understand it!"

And, in saying this, I am not slamming these people. "Of course they want this. We all do." It's called human nature.

(I am also not typecasting anyone ... saying that "all people" think this or that way. Just sayin'.)

Unfortunately, science just can't tell you what often it asked to tell. There was a time when science thought the world was flat. There was a time when Newton's falling apple was good enough. Every time science stumbles into something, everything is subject to change.

And then, what about "instinct," "intuition," "feelings," "that 'still, small voice?'" I mean, what about it?? Why are we so quick to dismiss such things, given that all of us encounter them quite regularly, and given that they so-often are proved right? What is so "un-scientific" about these things that are usually brushed into the basket of "religion?" Perhaps we are putting blinders on, that we shouldn't.

Yes, classical experiment-based scientific rigor purposely excludes such things ... but we embrace just such flights of fancy in our theoretical physics! We are "grudgingly" forced into acceptance of this where we do not yet have microscopes powerful enough to image atoms and quarks. But then, why do we deem it "smart" to exclude these notions, with regard to all things that [we think that we ...] can 'see?'

In the 19th century, when we could see much less than we [think we] can see today, Scientific Philosophy (a.k.a. "The Philosophy of Science") was taught in every school, and embraced as an enjoyable and productive pasttime in the days before "the glass teat." (Most of Darwin's explorations of evolution fall into this category – seeking to extrapolate, in a disciplined way, from what his original observations of the evolutionary process might, i.e. "without apparent contradiction" imply. Which is scientifically-useful in dealing with what cannot be experimentally observed, but which is a good deal more boring than what so many people took him to be saying.)

Religion is an equally-valid form of inquiry that is far older than science ... and I submit that there mustbe room enough in this world for both. In fact, I submit that we blind ourselves in both(!) ways when we do not. Without(!) tearing at one another's throats, we should actively look-for and embrace what both of these forms of human thought might be able to offer, one to the other. ("God won't mind. Really. ")

People have been looking up at the stars for a very, very long time. Every now and again, "science stumbles into" something ... that religion already knew. There are no "winners" vs. "losers" in this dualistic game of wanting to know.

Distribution: Slackware 14 is Main OpSys on Main PC, 2ndary are OpenSuSe 13 and SolydK

Posts: 841

Rep:

@Sundialsvcs -I thought I was through here, but you seem reasonable and friendly, so you deserve a response and also, you're right - everyone would like to know the answers to "The Big Questions" so there is some compulsion to delve into philosophy. It can be interesting and often even fun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs

@enorbet, I think that it's safe to say that for many people "science has become their 'religion,'" and they approach it in exactly the selfsame way as they did the old one: "[Science] says it, I believe it, and that settles it.™"

They want to have "the meaning of (and, the origin of ...) 'life, the universe, and everything,'" and, by God[-less], "they want to understand it!"

And, in saying this, I am not slamming these people. "Of course they want this. We all do." It's called human nature.

(I am also not typecasting anyone ... saying that "all people" think this or that way. Just sayin'.)

While I suppose there are people who do replace Religion with Science while remaining basically a person of Faith, who draws the line somewhere where it's acceptable to believe on Faith, it is not quite that simple because Science does not demand unconditional acceptance. Once again we are talking about a subtle difference between Faith and Confidence.

Example - I go to an amusement park and see a frightening looking roller coaster and I am one who enjoys such thrills. I really don't go down to the Courthouse and pour over the construction permits, or make measurements and calculate strength of materials to determine if it is safe for me to ride it.

I take a calculated risk based on a lifetime of experience that tells me that Insurance is expensive and government permits are difficult and engineers at a high rate of pay were likely hired to minimize risk (with a large fudge factor), insurance settlements, and bad press not to mention the obvious bad feelings of knowing you caused other humans harm. Further I can see the last bunch of screamers and arm-wavers disembark unharmed and extrapolate that this is not the first nor the last such bunch. It is likely safe to ride and only presents the illusion of real danger. This is by no means a comprehensive, cautious examination, but it suffices to assess the odds as minimal, since such disaster would fill the news and that is exceptionally rare, especially as time has gone on from their inception.

Similarly when Scientific Inquiry says a discovery has been made, even if it is in a field in which I have little knowledge let alone expertise, knowing the scrutiny that such inquiries require gives me some confidence. My confidence level may also be affected by where I read or view this discovery. I may have more skepticism about an article in my local newspaper, or Popular Science, than say, Scientific American, because I know something of their reputations and relative expertise. So I evaluate the likelihood on a sliding scale based on such factors and in addition whether the inquiry is far removed from me or impinges on my daily life. The closer it is to me, the greater the scrutiny. So not everyone who accepts the authority of Science is demonstrating Faith, nor is their confidence necessarily unconditional.

We are now getting into the slippery area of degrees because I am well aware that for example there were many Catholics, people who considered themselves "good Catholics", who did not accept that the Pope was infallible in all things. Example - birth control, divorce, fish on Friday, etc. However there is still a difference between dealing with things that can be known (example - if we don't use birth control we may have more children than we can afford to raise at a standard we enjoy) than things that can't be known, or known yet - The Big Questions.

This is where the divide takes place. Either you accept "answers" for things unknowable or you accept there are mysteries as yet unexplained. Either you accept that you should exercise your best judgment in living your life or you accept someone elses determination of what should be important to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs

Unfortunately, science just can't tell you what often it asked to tell. There was a time when science thought the world was flat. There was a time when Newton's falling apple was good enough. Every time science stumbles into something, everything is subject to change.

For the record at no time did Science propose that the earth was flat. Not only was the circumference calculated by the 3rd Century BC but so was the tilt of the axis. Google Eratosthenes. He may also have done a decent job of calculating the 93 Million miles distance to the Sun.

Newton's falling apple is still good enough for some very sophisticated calculations and not only limited to down here, planetside. However, GPS requires Einstein as does gravitational lensing and Black Holes, examples of predictions later borne out by observation.

Incidentally I take some exception at characterizing all or even a large part of Science as "stumbling". We stand on the shoulders of giants is by no means an overstatement, whether we are talking about the simple problem solving of flaking flint tools, building fire, smelting metals, discovering Radium (or the Periodic Table), the cure for Polio, or the geology of our Moon. Granted the earliest applications of Logic had yet to become a formal system, but it was exploration and logical deduction - Science, not Religion, that made this possible at all. Many gave their lives to such endeavors, and some even to religious zealotry. It is a travesty to refer to this as "stumbling" IMHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs

And then, what about "instinct," "intuition," "feelings," "that 'still, small voice?'" I mean, what about it?? Why are we so quick to dismiss such things, given that all of us encounter them quite regularly, and given that they so-often are proved right? What is so "un-scientific" about these things that are usually brushed into the basket of "religion?" Perhaps we are putting blinders on, that we shouldn't.

Yes, classical experiment-based scientific rigor purposely excludes such things ... but we embrace just such flights of fancy in our theoretical physics! We are "grudgingly" forced into acceptance of this where we do not yet have microscopes powerful enough to image atoms and quarks. But then, why do we deem it "smart" to exclude these notions, with regard to all things that [we think that we ...] can 'see?'

I am quick to dismiss "instinct, intuition, feelings, and small voices" because they are untestable and only useful in situations where there is nothing else, or where training has made routine "unconscious" or so-called "muscle memory". This does not mean I attempt to refute their existence. It doesn't even mean I don't accept their usefulness in certain kinds of behaviour. That just does not extend to knowing answers for larger questions. I prefer to use the right tool for the right job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs

In the 19th century, when we could see much less than we [think we] can see today, Scientific Philosophy (a.k.a. "The Philosophy of Science") was taught in every school, and embraced as an enjoyable and productive pasttime in the days before "the glass teat." (Most of Darwin's explorations of evolution fall into this category – seeking to extrapolate, in a disciplined way, from what his original observations of the evolutionary process might, i.e. "without apparent contradiction" imply. Which is scientifically-useful in dealing with what cannot be experimentally observed, but which is a good deal more boring than what so many people took him to be saying.)

Actually English Nobility knew exactly some of the more important aspects of what he was implying and resisted it on that basis because it gave far too much importance to the role of females in His-Story. They weren't bored. They were horrified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs

Religion is an equally-valid form of inquiry that is far older than science ... and I submit that there mustbe room enough in this world for both. In fact, I submit that we blind ourselves in both(!) ways when we do not. Without(!) tearing at one another's throats, we should actively look-for and embrace what both of these forms of human thought might be able to offer, one to the other. ("God won't mind. Really. ")

People have been looking up at the stars for a very, very long time. Every now and again, "science stumbles into" something ... that religion already knew. There are no "winners" vs. "losers" in this dualistic game of wanting to know.

We are reasonably close up to here and then we part ways dramatically. How is Religion an Inquiry beyond wishing to know? I do agree that we would like the answers to the same questions but I don't see any system to get those answers, nor do I accept that Religion "knew" something that Science only discovered much later.

I also don't accept that the roots of religion are necessarily older than the roots of Science. AFAIK the earliest records of anything approaching religion (care for the dead in what seems to be preparation for a life after death) are roughly 20,0000 years old. Roughly 1,000,000 years ago our ancestors came down from the disappearing trees and began to compete with predators for food on open savannah. It doesn't take brains to sneak up on a leaf but it does to steal food from a large cat. When we advanced from stealing kills to hunting for ourselves, team cooperation and pre-planning became even more important. This was the beginning of the application of deductive reasoning and the under-pinning of what would become a system, a system of Science.

While Religion has undoubtedly offered solace where no action was perceived possible (as well as a sense of community for many, certainly valuable commodities in the past), what action was possible was and is the result of Science.

Like you, I don't have any problem with star-gazers of any school, as long as their conclusions remain open to discourse or simply private. However I don't see scientists trying to influence government to rule my world in rigid, totalitarian ways. I see religious zealots.

Heh... Religion can "demand unconditional acceptance" from me if it wants to ... but it's never going to get it.

I definitely agree with you on the point that "accepting of Science" is not "a demonstration of Faith." Nor did I wish to suggest that the two are the same. I think that both of us well-know the sort of people that I am talking about. Likewise, I didn't intend to "characterize science as 'stumbling,'" merely to observe that, well, every now and then we do stumble-upon something that turns the whole applecart topsy-turvy.

"Un-testable?" Yes. But "therefore, 'useful for nothing else?'" Well, there is where I would disagree with you. A great many things that are untestable might nevertheless be useful, indeed. I personally suspect that there are many, many layers to our vast intellect, not all of which manifest themselves as "cold, reasoning logic." Intuition, and all those other "un-testable things," were key to survival itself. Far more so, perhaps, than "logic."

Likewise, our opinions diverge about statements like, "undoubtedly offered solace where no action was perceived possible [...] what action was possible was and is the result of Science." I think that our human experience has been enriched by both, and not simply when a society was faced with a sinking ship.

But we are absolutely in agreement that "influencing government in rigid, totalitarian ways" does happen, and that it emphatically is not acceptable. (However... I also wonder whether-or-not those people actually represent the Deity in whose Name they make so much loud noise. Somehow, I am reminded of words like, "they have already received all of the reward that they will ever receive." And of, "depart from Me ... I never knew you!" This, of course, being another topic-divergence best kept for another day.)